A federal appeals court has dealt a blow to the investigation of a former congressman in a ruling that could also limit probes of other lawmakers, according to three sources familiar with the matter.

The order, which has not been made public, came during the grand jury investigation of former representative Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) and his potential ties to former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the sources said. The appellate judges who issued the ruling did not say when they would release an opinion explaining their decision, which reversed a lower court order favorable to prosecutors seeking documents and grand jury testimony, the sources said.

Even without knowing the details of the ruling, sources and legal experts said it is important because it is the second time in two years that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has sided with Congress in its fight with the Justice Department over what protections lawmakers are granted under the Constitution's "speech or debate" clause. The clause is designed to shield lawmakers' official work from executive branch interference and has been increasingly cited by members of Congress under federal investigation.

The corrupt Feeney, as regular readers of The BRAD BLOG likely know, is currently under federal investigation due to his association with jailed Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff. In 2003 Feeney went on a junket with Abramoff to play golf at St. Andrews in Scotland. He would later claim he had no idea that the trip was illegally paid for by lobbyists.

For more details on the appellate court ruling --- or rather, hints, given what little is available on it for the moment --- please see WaPo's coverage today to hunt for clues.

One other very interesting point we hadn't noticed previously...Feeney is now being represented by Robert D. Luskin. If that name doesn't ring a bell, Luskin is also the attorney representing another well-known corrupt Republican currently under investigation: Karl Rove.

Feeney was ousted from his U.S. House seat by Democrat Suzanne Kosmas last November and, according to another recent WaPo story, has since rejoined his old law firm in Florida, where he was previously a partner. The firm, now known as Fowler, O'Quinn, Feeney & Sneed, is the same one cited by media accounts as the "outside general counsel" for YEI, when they issued a statement declaring Curtis' allegations to be "categorically false" not long after we originally broke the story.

Other than The BRAD BLOG, none of the major media outlets who cited the firm's statement at the time, said to have been written by partner Michael A. O'Quinn, bothered to note in their reporting that Feeney had been a partner himself in the firm until he became a U.S. Congressman in 2002.

In one instance, O'Quinn allegedly issued a letter as "outside counsel" for YEI, threatening legal action against a local South Florida newspaper who had covered Curtis' 2004 allegations against Feeney. The letter, written on the stationery of O'Quinn's firm, was virtually (we'd say suspicously) identical to a similar threatening letter sent to the paper just days prior, on the stationery of Feeney's personal attorneys. At the time the letter was written, O'Quinn was out of the country on a cruise ship.

The allegations and evidence against Feeney --- along with the story of our own travails in investigating and reporting the story --- was detailed in the documentary film, Murder, Spies & Voting Lies: The Clint Curtis Story, released late last year by filmmaker Patty Sharaf.

And just for yuks...This is the headline and sub-head that we didn't use for this story, but perhaps should have:

Wow, a snap ruling on a huge, nationally important decision makes me skeptical that this was rammed through before Holder fully takes the reins at the Justice Dept. From the wapo article,
"In this instance, the judges, Stephen F. Williams, Douglas H. Ginsburg and Brett M. Kavanaugh, issued the order hours after hearing oral arguments on Jan. 23, according to sources and a terse docket entry.
The sources said the order and lack of clarity surrounding it will temporarily halt aspects of the Feeney investigation and could compromise the government's case. Depending on the scope of the opinion, other investigations may also be affected, the sources said."
And also from wapo's article,
" …Legal experts said it was unusual for an appeals court to issue an order the same day as oral arguments. "It signals they feel strongly about the issue," said John O'Quinn, a former top Justice Department official, who has no knowledge of the Feeney investigation.
O'Quinn and other experts said the court may have wanted to halt "imminent" grand jury proceedings involving Feeney."

An oh yeah, did I mention all 3 judges were appointed by,you guessed it...republicans.

Although, I found this interesting in the article about Ginsburg,
"…Citing the "speech or debate" clause, a panel on the same court ruled 2 to 1 in August 2007 that FBI agents violated the rights of former representative William J. Jefferson (D-La.) when they searched his congressional office without consent. The court said that members of Congress have the right to review documents sought by investigators.
Under the ruling, lawmakers can seek to withhold documents, which are later reviewed by a judge to determine whether prosecutors may see them. Ginsburg, one of the judges in the Feeney case, sided with Jefferson."
But still, is this what we need, courts protecting possible criminal activity by congress members? I sure hope they don't take forever releasing their opinions so its forgotten down the crisis memory hole.

They should suspend all the rules for Feeney. The man is a complete crook and has betrayed the public trust time and time again. I'm in his district, and I can say with confidence that voters made the right decision in November. Let's hope Kosmas does better; the bar is set pretty low.

With the corruption of our justice system and the stacking of the courts, reining in abuses of power has gotten all but miraculously possible. But if no attempt is made to do just that, you can kiss your children’s children future in a viable democracy good bye. The imperceptibly gradual lead up to this brazen deconstruction of our democratic American way of life has taken place since the last failed coup attempt in 1930s.
“Quote from: Naomi Wolf
"A small group of people began very systematically to use the law and dismantle the Constitution and put pressure on citizens to subvert the law - and that opened the door for everything that followed,"

When I started reading, not only are tactics and strategy being reproduced exactly right now by the Bush administration - but actual sound bytes and language and images and scenarios are being reproduced.

Everybody that wants to close down a Democracy does the exact same ten things, the same classic steps and unfortunately we're starting to see these ten steps being put in place in the United States.

There was a scheme in the 30's and Prescott Bush was one of the leaders of this scheme, an industrialist who admired fascism and thought that was a good idea - to have a coup in the United States along the lines of the coup they saw taking place in Italy and Germany.

Smedley Butler had been involved with violent regime change throughout his career, but he was approached by these conspirators, including Prescott Bush, and he outed them and he testified to Congress that they were planning a coup in the United States - it's in the Congressional record.

The coup was being bankrolled by German industrialist and one of Hitler's chief financiers Fritz Thyssen.

What is amazing to me and resonant to me is that when the Nuremberg trials were finally put in place, these Nazi industrialists, some of whom had colluded with Americans including IBM, were about to be brought to trial and sent to prison - there was a moment at which they were going to look into turning the spotlight on their American partners.

The family history is that you can make so much money uniting corporate interests with a fascist state that violently represses people, that's why when I saw the recycling of so much Nazi language, Nazi tactics, Nazi strategies, Nazi imagery in the Bush White House and then finally belatedly people brought to me this history of Prescott Bush's attempted coup and Smedley Butler's revelations - it gives me absolute chills.

History shows the only safe course for preserving freedom in such a climate is to prosecute and jail the protagonists of the coup as early as possible, a process many would argue should have been enacted several years ago."

Here are the ten steps to help you put our recent history in perspective:

They are salivating for President Obama to fail, even going so far as to outright call for his “implosion” as a joy during a time of war, when just a scant few months ago to even question their administration would get you labeled “unpatriotic.”

Until we can manage to motivate 4 million people to turn off their ABC, CBS, FOX, PBS, NBC, and quit wasting time blogging where nobody gives a crap, and get off the couch and into the streets of Washington DC, it's going to be a dark night with no public oversight, where ballots of our future are counted!

So, supposedly a secret appellate court order curtails a grand jury investigation into one of the key Republicons behind secret vote counting and election fraud. Amazingly, according to the United States Supreme Court, a grand jury is supposed to have virtually unlimited power to subpoena evidence and compel testimony. For example, see Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 700 (1972).

It is amazing how often secret orders which are completely contrary to the rule of law get entered in cases dealing with election fraud. For an example of some of the curious action taken to cover up the evidence from the election contests in which I represented Clint Curtis, John Russell, and others, see Justice in Florida's Supreme Court and don’t miss the documents at the links below the video.

For the record, Mark. This case, as far as I know, has nothing to do with Election Fraud, other than it includes Feeney (and his relationship to Abramoff).

As to "virtually unlimited power", the keyword there is "virtually". In this case, a legitimate(-ish) argument seems to be being made concerning the separation between the branches of Government. It was applied similarly in the William Jefferson (D-LA) case, and supported by Dems as well, on the basis of pushing back against unlimited power by the Executive to interfere with the Legislative branch

I'm not sure I disagree with proceeding very cautiously in that area, particularly on the basis that you'll never have any idea what sorta person will be sitting in that Executive branch.

It would be nice to see the motion for a protective order by Feeney, the DOJ response to it, the order issued on this by the judge presiding over the grand jury proceedings, the appellate briefs, and the appellate court's order.

The question about the limits of a grand jury's power is a very important one as the grand jury is supposed to be the means by which the people can hold those in government criminally accountable for their actions. For more information about this, see What Happens When the People Lose the Power to Control Government This article explains when control of the grand jury was usurped by the executive branch, and it highlights some of the serious consequences resulting from the citizens' loss of this power.

Along those lines, I'm not surprised that a prosecuting prince with the DOJ hasn't brought up anything relating to election fraud in this proceeding. After all, the people on the grand jury just might be interested in investigating that issue.